Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health

[stevevw]

If you remove the opportunities that give one person power and control over others, the structure would be radically altered.

So therefore its not the structure itself but the people who abuse that make that structure abusive.

If it builds equality and autonomy, it's no longer a hierarchy.

No its not long an abusive hierarchy. All that remains is a non abusive hierarchy. The hiearchy is still there but its not abusive.

But the power and agency we give to people in different roles are chosen, not accidental or fixed.

Yes but they are not necessarily chosen for abusive reasons. That males ended up out in the fields and warehouses harvesting the crops or down the mines was not a chosen abusive situation where males happen to dominate the workforce. It was a natural choice which suited our lifestyle at the time. A natural progression from hunter gatherers to farming and communities.

That more women ended up as nurses at the time was a natural progression as women were better at the social contact involved in nursing people. Women were not trying to surpress males because they dominated nursing and nor were males because they dominated and had certain roles as males.

But that is not power over anyone else. It's privilege, an advantage others don't have, but it's not control over others.

Isn't privilegded part of it. Part of inequality. You were using this example in how wealthy parents can get away with abuse because of their priviledge.

But psychological distress isn't the cause of abuse. That's where your argument falls apart.

Its one of the contributing factors and a big one at that. Like I keep saying there is no single cause of abuse and its a dance between emotions, cognitions and beliefs. So you can't say its belief or feelings or thinking alone. These combine to create the conditions for abuse. You can't be primed to believe in negative thinking and beliefs without experience distress in the first place. They work together.

I think that's what I said. So what is your point?

No you said the hierarchy itself is abusive.

If the structure limits the agency or potential of people - take a really basic thing, like women not being able to get a bank loan without a man as guarantor - that structure becomes abusive even without having an abusive gatekeeper. This is structural oppression.

Yes but thats because the structure has been changed to reflect that negative thinking. The idea of a guarantor for loans is not abusive and works well. But this has been changed to descriminate against certain people. That situation can happen anywhere in life but its not because of any structure but because of the person or persons that manipulate the structure to descriminate.

So long as the person beeehind the structure is still in power it will continue. But as soon as they are stopped the same structure remains working the same but without the descrimination. Except that in some cases its justified such as for minors. But the idea of guarantor is not abusive nor the structure it operates within.

Like I said, the evidence gives hierarchies a bad name.

No Feminist gave hierarchies a bad name. It goes to show how powerful narratives can be. Like Toxic massulinity. Say it enough and it begins to rub off.

Difference doesn't have to mean disempowerment.

Therefore it shows the importance of not assuming that different outcomes in status, position or roles are the result of abuse. That they can be because of natural evolution or merit.

I think, for example, of the rule in some monasteries that before a superior can make a decision - any decision - which will affect the community, he or she must listen to the views of every member of the community on that matter. There's hierarchy there, but there is also an attempt to structure the life of the community so as not to disempower those who might not have the gifts and skills to rise to leadership positions.

Yes sort of like democracy, each vote counts just as important as the other in changing governments rather than being decided by a small group like one party or the military or even 1 dictator.

But inevitably some will be disempowered. I remember the looks on many peoples faces especially women crying when Trump was elected like it was the end of their world, that the devil himself had been elected lol. Many felt disempowered simply because they had a president in power who disagreed with their ideology on life.

But it is a reason why we put limits and controls around how that power can be used. And why we seek to remove the difference where it is not needed.

Yes power corrupts and we need checks and balances but thats not just for abuse thats for just about everything like justice, freedoms, opportunity, our whole way of life as a democracy opposed to a dictatorship or communism. But then thats equal outcome and not opportunity.

Equal opportunity is inherently going to lead to differences in status and control over life between people because some will rise to the top and others won't.

That's not a hierarchy. It would be a hierarchy if one spouse is given the right to make decisions for the other, and to control the other, while the agency of the other spouse is limited. If, for example, the breadwinner gives the homemaker no access to, information about, or input into financial matters, that could well be a risk for financial abuse. But as long as both have information, access, and a say in decisions, it's not.

The fundamental issue is control. Is one spouse controlling the other, or are both free to participate in decision making, to share their views, to offer feedback, to negotiate responsibilities, and so on?

So what if the breadwinner husband gives all control of the money to the homemaker wife. She has complete control of the money. Is that having control over the husband and denying autonomy. Or is the husband out at work and the wide in the home itself denying autonomy.

 

[Paidiske]

So therefore its not the structure itself but the people who abuse that make that structure abusive.

No; you entirely missed my point. Which was that if you were to change the structure to remove the power and control, it would be a completely different structure. The structure enables the abuse.

No its not long an abusive hierarchy. All that remains is a non abusive hierarchy. The hiearchy is still there but its not abusive.

In what sense is it a hierarchy at all, at that point?

Yes but they are not necessarily chosen for abusive reasons.

That doesn't mean the results aren't abusive. The Jesuits have a maxim; what is not consciously structured, is unconsciously unjust.

That males ended up out in the fields and warehouses harvesting the crops or down the mines was not a chosen abusive situation where males happen to dominate the workforce.

It's not even accurate; there have always been women labourers, especially in agriculture. We even see them mentioned in the Bible.

Isn't privilegded part of it. Part of inequality.

But you can be privileged without having power and control over someone, which was the point.

Its one of the contributing factors and a big one at that.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't find your argument on this point at all convincing. It flies in the face of everything we know about how the beliefs which underpin abuse are formed.

No you said the hierarchy itself is abusive.

And if you have a hierarchy in which control is expressed through the hierarchy, does that hierarchy not become abusive in itself?

The idea of a guarantor for loans is not abusive and works well. But this has been changed to descriminate against certain people.

And I'm not arguing against having a guarantor for loans. I am pointing out that barriers to women's financial agency are a form of an abusive structure.

That situation can happen anywhere in life but its not because of any structure but because of the person or persons that manipulate the structure to descriminate.

But once there's a policy, it goes beyond a person or persons and becomes embedded in the structure.

No Feminist gave hierarchies a bad name.

You say that as if they didn't have a point...

Therefore it shows the importance of not assuming that different outcomes in status, position or roles are the result of abuse. That they can be because of natural evolution or merit.

Nobody "merits" power and control over another adult.

Yes power corrupts and we need checks and balances but thats not just for abuse thats for just about everything

Maybe so, but this thread is concerned with abuse.

So what if the breadwinner husband gives all control of the money to the homemaker wife. She has complete control of the money. Is that having control over the husband and denying autonomy. Or is the husband out at work and the wide in the home itself denying autonomy.

If the couple agree between them that one should handle the finances and the other takes no interest, that's one thing. But when one spouse deliberately excludes the other from access, information, decision making, etc., that's when we're in the realm of financial abuse.

That's a really basic concept and it's quite frightening to me that you seem to not grasp it. Are you not aware of financial abuse?

 

[stevevw]

No; you entirely missed my point. Which was that if you were to change the structure to remove the power and control, it would be a completely different structure. The structure enables the abuse.

It would still be the same structure if we removed the people who were abusing the structure and using it to control others. The structure would then be filled with people who did not abuse and control.

For example as I mentioned earlier theres a growing trend of Trad wives who form what some would say is an oppressive and abusive structure. But though it has the same structure it is not abusive because everyone respects others rights to autonomy and equality. They just happen to believe that Traditional roles of the mother bringing up the kids at home and the father out working is best for their situation.

In what sense is it a hierarchy at all, at that point?

Well say for example a natural hierarchy formed in STEM where males dominated not because they were abusive but because males naturally ended up more in STEM especially say engineering. Now as a result of males dominating they may take advantage of their dominance and do things that denied females into STEM.

So the natural hierarchy has become oppressive to women due to the beliefs some in powerful positions had about women being in STEM. But if those individuals were taken out and replaced by others who respected equality regardless of gender then the same hierarchy is still there except it no longer is an oppressive one once again.

Quite often its the taking advantage of natural formed structures and turning them oppressive. The oppressors have to have a way natural way of getting into the positions of power in the first place.

Even the patriarchy began as a natural evolution where males happen to dominate the workforce and be the breadwinners. No one said lets choose a form of work that suits males so we can dominate women in work. It happened naturally and then males took advantage of that position and abused it.

That doesn't mean the results aren't abusive. The Jesuits have a maxim; what is not consciously structured, is unconsciously unjust.

Thats right, if the end result is abusive to others, then its abusive. I disagree with the Jesuits thinking on this. Its when we consciously structure things (social engineering) is when its most at risk of being unjust as this is when subjective ideology can influence how the structure should be. Even if people truly believe its the right thing they are blinded by ideology.

But a naturally evolving hierarchy as mentioned earlier where say males dominated the workforce due to the natural evoilution of society from hunter gatherers to farmers and factory.

No one consciously thought lets structure society where males dominate work by choiosing heavy work so we can oppress women. It just happened naturally. Its when males took advantage of that dominance, that natural position to hold that power and spread it that it bercame oppressive to women.

It's not even accurate; there have always been women labourers, especially in agriculture. We even see them mentioned in the Bible.

I'm talking about the labour intensive work of hunters and plowers of the fields, of shifting heavy bales in warehouses and in harbors, of heavy mining and ship work. Yeah some women could manage it but not many as it suited males more. Yeah men became protective of their industries but that doesn't change the fact that it was a natural evolution that males dominated this period of work.

We see it today with females dominating social work, health care, therapy, nursing ect because they are more social and have natural abilities in these fields over males. Yeah theres some males who relate especially gay males who have that femine touch. But primarily its a natural evoilution that females dominate that industry.

But you can be privileged without having power and control over someone, which was the point.

And you can dominate a field of work and not control or oppress. The point is just like you say a hiearchy is a vechicle for control and abuse of power so can priviledge. So it is related to abuse. You linked it back to abuse by claiming wealthy people use their priviledge to abuse.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't find your argument on this point at all convincing. It flies in the face of everything we know about how the beliefs which underpin abuse are formed.

You mean it flies in the face of what you know. The simple fact that human behaviour is a mix of feelings, cognitions and beliefs supports that psychological states have to be in the mix and belief is not something that can be understood on its own as far as human behaviour.

The fact that believeing in abuse and violence involves negative thoughts and feelings is evidence that negative thoughts and feelings are involved. The fact that 80% of abusers have some sort of psychological and emotion problem is evidence that psychological states are involved.

And if you have a hierarchy in which control is expressed through the hierarchy, does that hierarchy not become abusive in itself?

Yes becomes abusive itself like a car becomes a weapon on the road to harm other users. People use legitimate hierarchies to abuse. The police force is a natural industry in society but can abuse that position. But if we take the abusers out and restore the fairness and equality then the same structure will noi longer be abusive.

I agree that perhaps people can create a hierachy or control situation from the ground up but most of the time abusive control begins from a naturally evolved situation and then people take advantage and abuse their position.

And I'm not arguing against having a guarantor for loans. I am pointing out that barriers to women's financial agency are a form of an abusive structure.

Yes but my point was the structures themselves like going guarantor for someone is not itself abusive. Its when someone uses a legitinate structure or part of that system to abuse. In this case abusing a good and useful idea of a guarantor in the financial system to penalize one group women.

But once there's a policy, it goes beyond a person or persons and becomes embedded in the structure.

Yes but its still doesn't necessarily mean the structure itself is wrong. As with the guarantor. There may be a policy that women need a guarantor thus denying them autonomy. But we change the policy and not the entire structure because a guarantor itself and the structure it works within is an impostant part of the structure.

Now we may find many unfair policies and practices in the financial system that may disadvantage different groups especially lower socioeconomic groups who may end up being penalized more for late payments ect. But that doesn't mean the entire system is abusive. It means we have to tweak the specific policies and practices within that system.

You say that as if they didn't have a point...

No they had a point but they took it too far. Well actually later waves of Feminism took it too far.

Nobody "merits" power and control over another adult.

Yes they do such as in organisations. The upline managers have power and control over lower tiers going all the way up to the CEO and board.

The bank has power and control over your money when you have a loan. They dictate that you must pay it back hook or crook and that means you work for the bank and they control at least some of your life. Life is just like that. No one is truely free.

If the couple agree between them that one should handle the finances and the other takes no interest, that's one thing. But when one spouse deliberately excludes the other from access, information, decision making, etc., that's when we're in the realm of financial abuse.

Yes so what may appear on the surface where one person has complete control of finances as being controlling is actually an agreed setup which the couples believe is best for them.

So it mimicks what Feminist would called an abusive setup because they believe women should have financial independence no matter what, no even enter into such agreed setups in the first place. The exact same setup is not abusive showing that its not the setup but the relationship between the people involved and even what appears to be abusive on the surface can be actually beneficial.

It also shows that ideology can blind people in that some will insist that this situation is abusive no matter what because they believe everything no matter what should be exactly equal regardless and assume that any unequal setup is automatically abusive.

That's a really basic concept and it's quite frightening to me that you seem to not grasp it. Are you not aware of financial abuse?

No I realize that some people abuse that position. But there are many situations in society where good people are in total control of their elderly family members and do the right thing. So there's nothing wrong with having that financial control.

I even know of several homeless young guys who have had their benefits controlled by the Public Trust due to poor financial management because of personal issues. Its the abuser not the setups. The setups are legit but can be abused either individually of through policy.

 

[Paidiske]

It would still be the same structure if we removed the people who were abusing the structure and using it to control others. The structure would then be filled with people who did not abuse and control.

But as long as the structure gives some power over others, it's there to abuse. The ideal would be to set up structures which remove or limit that power.

For example as I mentioned earlier theres a growing trend of Trad wives who form what some would say is an oppressive and abusive structure. But though it has the same structure it is not abusive because everyone respects others rights to autonomy and equality.

I'm not interested in what "some would say." The operative question is: is one person controlling another? If the answer is no, I have no issue.

Well say for example a natural hierarchy formed in STEM where males dominated not because they were abusive but because males naturally ended up more in STEM especially say engineering. Now as a result of males dominating they may take advantage of their dominance and do things that denied females into STEM.

The issue there is not who is in the dominant roles, but that those in the dominant roles have that kind of power over others. There's nothing "natural" about particular roles having particular power or responsibility; that's all about decisions we make.

I disagree with the Jesuits thinking on this. Its when we consciously structure things (social engineering) is when its most at risk of being unjust as this is when subjective ideology can influence how the structure should be.

Their point is that our subjective ideology will be expressed no matter what we do; but if we are intentional about applying principles of justice, we are more likely to limit the ways our subjective ideologies will be expressed unjustly.

No one consciously thought lets structure society where males dominate work by choiosing heavy work so we can oppress women. It just happened naturally.

They might not have chosen to do so consciously (although they might, also, at least to some extent. Legal frameworks around the subjugation of women go back a long way), but that doesn't mean it was "natural," either. It was driven by human choices.

Yeah men became protective of their industries but that doesn't change the fact that it was a natural evolution that males dominated this period of work.

It's as if you don't even recognise the many forms of work even in subsistence agriculture, and how many of them are, by necessity, done by women as well as men.

And you can dominate a field of work and not control or oppress.

I don't even know why you're talking about workplaces; we were talking about hierarchy and abuse in the household.

You linked it back to abuse by claiming wealthy people use their priviledge to abuse.

I believe that was in one of the UN reports I linked, yes. Pointing out that abuse in wealthy households was under-reported because it was easier for wealthy households to conceal their abuse.

The fact that believeing in abuse and violence involves negative thoughts and feelings

Again, this is your subjective value judgement!

But if we take the abusers out and restore the fairness and equality then the same structure will noi longer be abusive.

Not if the structure itself is used to control, or oppress. The structure itself may need reform.

Yes but my point was the structures themselves like going guarantor for someone is not itself abusive.

But the policy that required a guarantor for a woman is, itself, structurally oppressive.

Yes but its still doesn't necessarily mean the structure itself is wrong. As with the guarantor.

But again, once there's a policy that requires a guarantor for a woman, that is part of the structure which needs reforming.

But we change the policy and not the entire structure

In this case, the policy is part of the structure, and might be the only change needed. In other cases, the change needed might be more thorough.

Yes they do such as in organisations.

Even in organisations, that power and control is only legitimate as it relates to participation in that organisation and its aims.

Yes so what may appear on the surface where one person has complete control of finances as being controlling is actually an agreed setup which the couples believe is best for them.

Which is not financial abuse, and not an issue.

So it mimicks what Feminist would called an abusive setup

No, it doesn't. If it's an agreed set up, if that agreement can be revisited and renegotiated at any time, if it is not being used by one person to control the other, it's not an abusive set up.

because they believe women should have financial independence no matter what, no even enter into such agreed setups in the first place.

I think you've got a very misrepresentative idea of feminism, there. (Starting with the need to point out that feminism is not a monolith).

But there are many situations in society where good people are in total control of their elderly family members and do the right thing. So there's nothing wrong with having that financial control.

Caring for the affairs of someone who no longer has the capacity to do so is a completely separate situation.

 

[stevevw]

That would only be true if they would only place children with families where the parents adhered rigidly to particular roles (breadwinner, homemaker, whatever). But they don't. Their objection is not based on paternal or maternal roles, but on the sinfulness of same-sex relationships.

No the adoption agencies are stipulating a more fundemental rigid role that only biological males can be fathers and females a mother and any deviation is denied. So SS couples and trans who identify as the opposite sex cannot cannot even play the role of parents let only be in the position of being the male breadwinner or homemaker.

Its a more fundemental denial of diverse roles where they are made rigid and only certain genders and sex can be qualified for that role in the fist place. Thus denying the legitimacy of any deviation from those rigid roles. Thuse in the eyes of progressives this is abuse against certain people in society denying them equality as parants.

Because I don't believe it is about distress, at all. That doesn't mean I think our experiences don't shape us, or our beliefs.

How can you say that. When things get to the point of abuse and violence there is distress involved in every single case. Whether thats from the abuser or inflicted on the victim and within the home. I have linked plenty of evidence showing the vast majority if not all abusers have some distress going on. So at the very least its involved in the majority of cases.

Even your links support this.

Yes, our beliefs are shaped by our experiences. But the model you're putting forward of how the beliefs which underpin abuse are formed doesn't match my understanding at all.

Thats your understanding which may be wrong or biased. If as you agree experience shapes beliefs then it stands to reason that negative experiences are going to have an influence on shaping those beliefs negatively. If the experience is positive then beliefs will be more positive.

You cannot form negative beliefs from positive experiences of a caring and loving upbringing. Unless something negative happened along the way that causes the person to not handle things and internalise that negative experience. You have to negatively internalise those experiences so they influence how you see the world thus influencing beliefs.

Aggression is not a feeling, it's a personality trait. And aggression can be controlled in its expression. And there is plenty of controlled abuse. Your whole construction rests on connections which are just completely false.

That contradicts the evidence. For example

An aggressive personality trait or trait aggressiveness has been defined as “a general propensity to engage in acts of physical and verbal aggression, a proneness to anger, and a proneness to hold hostile beliefs about other people across situations”

Aggressive/hostile personality traits and injury accidents: an eight-year prospective study of a large cohort of French employees -- the GAZEL cohort

Aggressiveness on the roads and/or anger behind the wheel are considered to be a major traffic safety problem in several countries. However, the psychological mechanisms of anger and/or aggression on the roads remain largely unclear. This study examines ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So its not something that can be controlled compared to those without that 'trait aggressiveness'. They are more prone to get aggressive than others. In other words they are primed to be more aggressive and believe in aggression due to their psychological makeup which is the result of their experiences compared to others.

I'm saying it's not necessarily driven by aggression.

But the definition of crossing the line and using 'Unreasonable force' thats deemed harmful and damaging means the force is beyond controlled and more intense. So the feeling has to be more intense as compared to controlled anger and into at least the beginning of uncontrolled aggression by the simple fact its now unreasonable force.

This is just nonsense. People can smack without rage, and without aggression, and without raised intensity of feeling.

Then why is it classed as unreasonable force. Force as in the intensity and any unreasonable force crosses the line of controlled force.

It takes a certain amount of intensity thats deemed reasonable but it takes an increased amount of force and intensity to cross the line. Its when it creeps into this unreasonable force that people lose control because the intensity of feelings for that increased force is stepping into feelings taking over.

You have pulled together an argument, but I would say only loosely based on the evidence.

No my arguement is completely based on the evidence I presented. The evidnece even comes from everyday common sense science of human behaviour. Thats how strong it is.

Your actually arguing against psychology 101 and basic behavioural science about how emotion, cognition, perceptions and resulting beliefs work together for anything not just relating to abuse and violence.

Not at all what I have said. Good grief.

Well as far as I understand you have repeatedly implied that being compromised by psychological and emotional problems is not relevant to why parents abuse. For example you said

"but it's not about being cognitively and affectively compromised".
"People don't abuse because their abilities are compromised or their thinking is distorted".

Because it's not why people abuse. We know that. We know the difference between abusers and non-abusers, and it's not psychological or emotional state.

Then why do links including yours say that treating the psychological and emotional state alone will prevent those parents from abusing. If we just worked on their beliefs and neglected to address their psychological problems they would still feel the need to abuse when their emotional dysfunction comes to the surface and dictates their moods and thinking.

I could make an argument,

Well then do so, one that defeats their claim to maintain oppression over women and deny their autonomy. One that exposes their irrational thinking. Otherwise who says their thinking is irrational and therefore oppressing women is something men should not do.

but since superiority and inferiority are not an objective matter but a value judgement, I don't know that it's an objective matter at all.

Well if its not an objective matter and we cannot objectively say the males are doing anything wrong then who gives women feminist the right to want to tear down the patriarchy lol. Its just a subjective value and its all in the eye of the believer and no belief is objectively wrong or irrational.

That is not what I was saying. Abuse is not always "uncontrolled" behaviour. I'd suggest it seldom is.

It has to be uncontrolled by the fact it steps beyond what is considered reasonable force. The fact the abuser does not know the line shows they are not even bothers to control their behaviour due to lack of dilegence. If they do know the line but they still cross that line then this also shows a lack of control in that they acted in contradiction to what is considered reasonable. They did not control their behaviour despite knowing the line.

Well, no. They may have been at risk even without their diagnosis,

Yes the stats support this. Thats why its important to be aware of the increased risk and if not identified and disagnosed make efforts to identify this and then offer supports and treatment to prevent them developing an even higher risk of abuse.

but with treatment, their diagnosis did not increase their risk over that baseline.

Yes correct and with treatment even caused them to be less of a risk because of the fact that they had protective measures in place that prevented them deteriorating into that situation again. In some ways a lesser risk than a single mum in the general population without psychiatric conditions who may be struggling with other risk factors like psychological distress and substance abuse or past abuse.

What part of "no mental illness" do you not understand?

Your article was specially equating mental illness with 'psychiatric conditions' and not more common psychological problems like anxiety and depression which are not necessarily psychiatric conditions. We don't put parents with anxiety and depression in psychiatric treatment centres like the parents in the study.

Otherwise if we take your definition that psychiatric condition means just anxiety problems then your article is saying that abusive parents in the general population do not have anxiety issues. This is obviously wrong so your conflating psychiatric disorders with common psychological problems like anxiety, depression, emotional problems other stress related conditions.

Remembering that even non abusers in the general population can suffer these and it may cause them cognitive distortions and emotional dysregulation regarding a host of other problems like substance abuse, relationship and family breakdown, DV, homelessness, job loss ect and we don't put these people in mental homes.

I am reading the paper, and taking from it that the majority of abusers in the population had no diagnosed mental health condition of any kind.
Yes, it contradicts your position. That's why I gave you the paper; it is counter-evidence to your claims.

Yes no diagnosed mental illness, But that says nothing about undiagnosed mental illness, or the other risk factors that lead to abuse like anxiety, depression, problems with regulating aggression, stressors, past abuse, low socioeconomics, DV, ect.

I mean even a parents past history of being abused or experiencing DV accounts for a large %. Around a 1/3 of child abusers were abused themselves and around 40% of abused children grow up to abuse others. That doesn't count for example that 80% plus of single mums have psychological issues a high % of these abuse. Or that around 80 to 90% of children in DV end up being abused.

So obviously when you add up all these risk factors its obvious that your either reading the article wrong or the article itself is wrong according to the data. With all these risk factors theres some psychological problems going on in the general population and this makes up a large % of abusers that don't necessarily have psychiatric disorders. But if you want to count them as such then you will have to explain how the data contradicts your claim.

Approximately one-third of all individuals who are abused in childhood will become abusers themselves, About 40% of children who are abused will go on to abuse others in later life

https://gitnux.org/abused-becoming-abusers-statistics/#:~:text=Approximately%20one%2Dthird%20of%20all,later%20abuse%20their%20own%20children.

Eighty to 90% of domestic violence victims abuse or neglect their children.

Domestic Violence - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf

I'm not saying it doesn't need managing. I'm saying it doesn't cause abuse.

It cannot be seperated from what causes abuse. The cause of abuse is a complex interaction of cognition, emotion, feelings, perceptions, beliefs and experiences. You cannot single out a sole factor as the cause of abuse.

I look at it pragmatically. If treating people for their mental illness or psychological and emotional problems minimises and even prevents the risk then its preventing child abuse.

If you only looked at the beliefs and did not address the underlying psychological issues like anxiety disorders and other stressors that contribute to people being primed to abuse then this will not change their beliefs because it is their psychological state due to their experiences which primes them to believe such things in the first place.

Our beliefs shape how we express our aggression. Remember the lecturer I mentioned, who expressed his high aggression in writing biting academic articles, but took pains not to bully his students?

You mean expressed his irritability rather than aggression. If it was aggression then he would have written harmful comments intended to do harm. Thats the difference between negative aggression and anger or irritability which is subdued due to insight (emotional intelligence).

The reason the lecturer was able to admit his weakness and therefore control it. If he lacked that then he would not have that insight and therefore cross the lineinto writing actual harmful intended stuff.

So the lecturers beliefs were guided by his emotional intelligence, insight into himself and therefore his beliefs were to control his aggression. He believed that using harmful aggression was inappropriate. But others don't have insight, don't face their issues and don't have EI and allow their aggression to control their thinking and behaviour.

Even at that point, we choose our behaviours. We choose whether to hit someone, whether to yell, whether to throw something or slam a door or go for a walk to cool off.

I am not sure about that. Reactions are pretty instantaneous. There is little time to think. At least little time to think rationally or with emotional intelligence and insight.

Abusers with dysregulated and dysfunctional emotions and thinking will at times perhaps in more quiet moments glimpse at they inappropriate behaviour and perhaps thats when they are in more of a position to do something and get help. But often this is just a fleeting thought as its too confrontational and scary to admit theirs something wrong with their world.

Yes. Almost everyone would have an element of aggression in our psychological make up (although obviously some more than others). It helps drive things like competitive behaviour, ambition, and so on.

I think aggression is on a gradient from anger to rage. So you people can have varying degrees of propensity towards being more aggressive than others. But then that supports what I am saying that not everyone is on the same playing field when it comes to being able to control their aggression.

The helpful distinction I've seen made is that aggression is the drive to dominate a situation, where violence is the drive to inflict harm. Now, often the drive to dominate can end up being harmful, but it doesn't have to be.

Yes its the drive to harm others that destinguishes positive and negative aggression and controlled and uncontrolled aggression.

 

[Paidiske]

No the adoption agencies are stipulating a more fundemental rigid role that only biological males can be fathers and females a mother and any deviation is denied.

But that's not really a role. It's not about what you do.

How can you say that.

Because we know about what forms the beliefs which underpin abuse. And it's not distress. The link I gave you about social norms in Georgia is a really good example.

Thats your understanding which may be wrong or biased.

But is at least well-informed.

If as you agree experience shapes beliefs then it stands to reason that negative experiences are going to have an influence on shaping those beliefs negatively.

"Negative" is a subjective value judgement. It's fairly meaningless in this discussion.

That contradicts the evidence.

And yet nothing in what you go on to say, disagrees with what I said that prompted this response from you.

So its not something that can be controlled compared to those without that 'trait aggressiveness'.

Of course it can. And many people do learn to control their aggression, or to express it appropriately. I myself have learned to watch my words after being a fairly verbally aggressive young person in some situations.

But the definition of crossing the line and using 'Unreasonable force' thats deemed harmful and damaging means the force is beyond controlled and more intense.

No, it doesn't. Someone who hits with a belt may be no less controlled than the person who hits with a hand.

Then why is it classed as unreasonable force.

Because it is disproportionate to the situation. It's not saying anything about the mental state of the person doing it.

any unreasonable force crosses the line of controlled force.

Well, no. "Controlled" and "reasonable" aren't the same thing at all.

Your actually arguing against psychology 101 and basic behavioural science about how emotion, cognition, perceptions and resulting beliefs work together for anything not just relating to abuse and violence.

Really? I've done psychology 101 (and then some). And it seems to me that you are the one oversimplifying and misunderstanding these things.

Well as far as I understand you have repeatedly implied that being compromised by psychological and emotional problems is not relevant to why parents abuse.

Correct.

Then why do links including yours say that treating the psychological and emotional state alone will prevent those parents from abusing.

They don't. The one I provided explicitly stated that the majority of people who abuse have no mental illness.

If we just worked on their beliefs and neglected to address their psychological problems they would still feel the need to abuse when their emotional dysfunction comes to the surface and dictates their moods and thinking.

No, they wouldn't. If we successfully challenged the beliefs which underpin abuse, they might still experience significant problems, but they would express them in different ways. As so many people who don't have those beliefs in the first place, but have the same sorts of problems, do all the time.

Well then do so, one that defeats their claim to maintain oppression over women and deny their autonomy. One that exposes their irrational thinking. Otherwise who says their thinking is irrational and therefore oppressing women is something men should not do.

Firstly, it's off topic to this thread. Secondly, I make such arguments routinely, I'm sure you can find some on CF if you try. And thirdly, my whole point is that although I might disagree, that doesn't mean they're irrational.

Whether or not we should do something doesn't rest on whether or not it is rational; it rests on whether or not it is ethical. Which is a completely separate argument.

Well if its not an objective matter and we cannot objectively say the males are doing anything wrong then who gives women feminist the right to want to tear down the patriarchy lol.

I said that saying that one sex is superior to the other is a subjective matter. Oppression is easier to argue against than a subjective value judgement.

It has to be uncontrolled by the fact it steps beyond what is considered reasonable force.

Where did you get such a strange idea? People do things considered unreasonable in a controlled way all the time.

The fact the abuser does not know the line shows they are not even bothers to control their behaviour due to lack of dilegence.

Nonsense. I think of my own parents; they knew where the legal line was, they disagreed with it, and they felt justified in overstepping it, but you could never accuse them of a lack of diligence. They were diligent in doing their duty as parents, as they understood it.

Yes the stats support this. Thats why its important to be aware of the increased risk and if not identified and disagnosed make efforts to identify this and then offer supports and treatment to prevent them developing an even higher risk of abuse.

No, I was saying they may have been at risk even without this particular mental health condition.

Your article was specially equating mental illness with 'psychiatric conditions' and not more common psychological problems like anxiety and depression which are not necessarily psychiatric conditions.

Was it? Do you have a quote to that effect?

Otherwise if we take your definition that psychiatric condition means just anxiety problems then your article is saying that abusive parents in the general population do not have anxiety issues.

No, I'm saying anxiety problems are included in mental illness. And yes, absolutely the article is saying - what I have been saying - abusive parents do not all have anxiety issues.

Yes no diagnosed mental illness,

Including depression, anxiety, and the other common diagnoses which are generally managed without hospital admission.

But that says nothing about undiagnosed mental illness,

Well, no, obviously. But nor am I going to buy into the idea that all of the abusive parents had undiagnosed anxiety disorders, with absolutely no evidence for that claim.

So obviously when you add up all these risk factors its obvious that your either reading the article wrong or the article itself is wrong according to the data.

"I disagree, so it's obviously wrong!" Not a very convincing position.

It cannot be seperated from what causes abuse.

Well, yes, it can. Because so many people with psychiatric problems never abuse.

If you only looked at the beliefs and did not address the underlying psychological issues like anxiety disorders and other stressors that contribute to people being primed to abuse then this will not change their beliefs because it is their psychological state due to their experiences which primes them to believe such things in the first place.

You've never even demonstrated that people are "primed" to hold the beliefs which underpin abuse. Just claimed it.

You mean expressed his irritability rather than aggression.

No, I mean expressed his aggression.

If it was aggression then he would have written harmful comments intended to do harm.

Not necessarily. Aggression can be expressed without the intent to harm.

I am not sure about that.

Well, if you want to argue abusers have no free will, don't choose to abuse, then I completely disagree. It's a choice.

 

[stevevw]

Really? Would you please cite exactly what clinical measures for irrational thinking are measuring? And highlight where those measures relate to acceptance of violence, hierarchy, rigid roles, power and control.

I wanted to at least reply to this post as I think this is important in helping to understand the Mindset of a person who wants to control others, abuse and use violence.

I have pulled out some sections already posted I think relate to the type of Mind set or Mind Filter that believes in the ideas like rigid roles and controlling others such as within hierarchies. As I said its not so much the roles or structures but the thinking (mindset) that creates the need for rigid roles to control others and conditions and for abusive hierarchies.

So I have concentrated on sections that speak about the controlling thinking over others and how they are primed for this particular mindset and the beliefs.

The abusive parents have unrealistic expectations of their children. They are usually rigid and inflexible in their thinking and are more likely to use coercive disciplinary methods and believe that harsh punishment is the only way to discipline. Parents at risk of abuse toward children tend to have low self-esteem and self-efficacy (believing they have effective parenting techniques).
Why Do Parents Physically Abuse Their Children

Controlling parents cannot regulate their emotions. Parents with fearful and controlling tendencies not only have mind-filters that pay selective attention to danger, but they also habitually catastrophise and imagine only worst-case scenarios. They over-analyse everything and assume people have ulterior motives. As a result, they misperceive reality and assume hostility from others when there is none. Their defensive mechanisms are so powerful that complete dissociation from reality can be the result. They are always on edge and their emotions are always close to boiling over.
Controlling Parents Trauma.

The research notes that physically abusive parents have deficits in their perceptions, expectations, interpretations and evaluations of their child’s behaviour. Furthermore, parents who have high levels of personal distress, as is often the case with parents deemed ‘at risk’, often have information processing difficulties which makes perspective taking more difficult.
https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/321630/researchnotes_parental_empathy.pdf

The above articles link the psychological and emotional dysfunction (low self esteem, fearful, paranoid and emotions on edge, high levels of personal stress) with the controlling mindset (rigid and inflexible thinking, fearful controlling tendencies) and the irrational and unreal beliefs (unreal expectations, mispercieving reality and deficits in their perceptions, interpretations and evaluations).

Findings suggest that greater approval of parent–child aggression, negative perceptions of their child’s behavior, and discipline attributions independently predicted parent–child aggression risk, with anger significantly interacting with mothers’ perception of their child as more poorly behaved to exacerbate their parent–child aggression risk. Of the discipline attribution dimensions evaluated, mothers’ sense of external locus of control and believing their child deserved their discipline were related to increase parent–child aggression risk.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0886260516629386

The above article shows how unregulated and uncontrolled aggression is an important factor in influencing negative thinking and beliefs (anger significantly interacting with mothers’ perception).

The following are more general evidence of how the mind of an abuser or person who uses aggression and violence to control others such as with abusive CP or DV.

Research has revealed that violent individuals have different ways of processing and interpreting that information. “They tend to perceive hostility in others when there is no hostility” (APA, 1996, p. 5). This notable tendency is referred to as hostile attribution bias. Violent people are also less efficient at thinking of nonviolent ways to solve social conflicts and disagreements. They also tend to be more accepting of violence in general and believe it is acceptable to behave that way. https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/24081_Pages_272_273.pdf

Notice the same hostile perception and thinking in the above article that speaks about controlling and abusive parents. So the thinking is warped towards aggression, and violence due to their disposition which is usually determined by their negative experiences.

But the best evidence about what are the core beliefs that underpin the controlling, violent and abusive mindset is from the following artilce which sights Ellis among others whose theories are well supported. I mentioned these ealier such as with the core belief Low Frustration Tolerence (LFT) and Demandingness.

It is these core beliefs that underpin controlling thinking like wanting rigid roles and to want to abuse others within a hierarchy or where ever abuse and control may happen. The lack of tolerance for other behaviours and certain situations that provoke feelings of uncomfortability. Or the demandingness of others and life to conform to the parents way of thinking.

The basic irrational belief that underlies human disturbance is the absolutistic “must” or demand statements about self, others and life conditions (Ellis, 1994). Demandingness is the tendency to transform wishes, desires, and preferences into absolutistic requirements. Following the level of cognition proposed by DiGiuseppe et al. (2014), demandingness is a core irrational belief which serves as a basic life philosophy.

DiGiuseppe et al. (2014) proposed four categories of irrational beliefs: demandingness as core belief, respectively LFT, global evaluation of human worth and awfulizing as logical derivatives of demandingness.

David et al. (2005) and Turner (2016) argued for primary evaluative belief or primary appraisal (demandingness) and three secondary appraisal processes or evaluative beliefs (Low Frustration Tolerence (LFT), global evaluation of human worth and awfulizing). Szentagotai et al. (2005) conceptualized demandingness and global evaluation of human worth as evaluative schemas; low frustration tolerance and awfulizing were described as appraisals (evaluative cognitions). Ellis considered LFT as probably the first irrational beliefs that young children develop (McMahon and Vernon, 2010). Low frustration tolerance (LFT) reflects perceived inability to withstand reality when it is not as one wants it to be.

Many studies described LFT as a multidimensional construct. Among its components were listed emotion intolerance, behavior intolerance, discomfort intolerance, effort intolerance, rules intolerance, entitlement (intolerance of unfairness and frustrated gratification), achievement intolerance (intolerance of frustrated achievement goals), uncertainty intolerance, ambiguity intolerance, work intolerance, etc.

There are empirical studies supporting that extreme conviction and idealistic approach are used as a defense mechanism when people face different threats of self. Jonas et al. (2014) postulated that people feel uncertainty anxiety and try to escape from it by using reactive defense mechanisms (the extremist mind set) when their epistemic equilibrium is shaky, when they have an insecure self-esteem and when their self-control is threatened.

McGregor et al. (2013) found that extreme religious beliefs were determined by personal uncertainty through active achievement and relationship goals threatening. In another study, McGregor et al. (2005) empirically supported associations between insecure forms of high self-esteem (high explicit and low implicit self-esteem), concluding that self-esteem can be a sign of defensiveness and may result from repeatedly hiding implicit self-doubts with the display of explicit self-worth masks. These self-worth masks could be pride, avoidant or arrogant attachment style, narcissism and entitlement.
Irrational Beliefs and the Experience and Expression of Anger - Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy

 

[Paidiske]

I have pulled out some sections already posted I think relate to the type of Mind set or Mind Filter that believes in the ideas like rigid roles and controlling others such as within hierarchies.

This is not what I asked. I asked what clinical measures for irrational thinking are measuring. That is, in the clinical instruments used to gauge irrational thinking, such as the RAIBS or the P-RIBS, exactly what are they measuring? What are the questions designed to identify?

And then only after you have answered that question, pointing out which of those measures relate to the very specific beliefs (acceptance of violence, hierarchy, power and control, rigid roles) which underpin abuse.

What I am trying to do is look at your claimed link between irrational thinking and abuse, and seeing if there is actually any relationship between these things in the clinical instruments designed to measure irrational thinking, or if it's something you're claiming without that relationship actually being there.

 

[stevevw]

This is not what I asked. I asked what clinical measures for irrational thinking are measuring. That is, in the clinical instruments used to gauge irrational thinking, such as the RAIBS or the P-RIBS, exactly what are they measuring? What are the questions designed to identify?
And then only after you have answered that question, pointing out which of those measures relate to the very specific beliefs (acceptance of violence, hierarchy, power and control, rigid roles) which underpin abuse.

What I am trying to do is look at your claimed link between irrational thinking and abuse, and seeing if there is actually any relationship between these things in the clinical instruments designed to measure irrational thinking, or if it's something you're claiming without that relationship actually being there.

That would be the articles I linked earlier with the Irational and rational belief scale. The basic core beliefs used to measure a parents or individuals responses as to whether their thinking is rational or irrational including relating to parenting are Demandingness, Awfulizing, Frustration Intolerance and Global evaluations of human worth.

Otherwise you will have to give me an example of what your specifically talking about.

But take for example Demandingness. A controlling person including a parent who diciplines abusively through high expectation of rules and punishment will be inclined to show high Demandingness generally with high expectation of rule following. They will also display Frustration Intolerance in their thinking for deviations in situations that don't go their way like children behaving badly in contradiction to the unreal expectations they place on their child. Which also relates to the Rigid roles thinking.

I mentioned these in the previous posts by Ellis. In fact four core beliefs mentioned above are the basic measure of Rational and Irrational Beliefs which was created by DiGiuseppe who I linked in the previous post.
DiGiuseppe et al. (2014) proposed four categories of irrational beliefs: demandingness as core belief, respectively LFT, global evaluation of human worth and awfulizing as logical derivatives of demandingness.

The development and validation of the Parent Rational and Irrational Beliefs Scale
The items were constructed to reflect (1) the four irrational beliefs (demandingness-DEM, awfulizing-AWF, low frustration intolerance-LFT, and global evaluation-GE) and (2) four rational beliefs [preferences/flexibility rather than demandingness (PRE); negative evaluations rather than awfulizing (BAD); frustration tolerance rather than low frustration tolerance (FT); and unconditional acceptance rather than global evaluation (non-GE)], as measured by the Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (ABS-II; DiGiuseppe et al., 1988).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042811022749

But what I find strange is that you just dismiss the entire post as irrelevant when it directly links psychological distress with irrational thinking and beliefs in controlling and abusive parents which supports my claim that abusive parents have psychological problems and are thinking irrationally regardless of how its measured.

 

[Paidiske]

That would be the articles I linked earlier with the Irational and rational belief scale. The basic core beliefs used to measure a parents or individuals responses as to whether their thinking is rational or irrational including relating to parenting are Demandingness, Awfulizing, Frustration Intolerance and Global evaluations of human worth.

Okay. But these do not relate directly to the specific beliefs which underpin abuse (except, perhaps, as noted, some possible aspects of demandingness). So you cannot draw a neat line from "irrational thinking," even measured in clinical terms, and abuse risk.

 

[stevevw]

Okay. But these do not relate directly to the specific beliefs which underpin abuse (except, perhaps, as noted, some possible aspects of demandingness). So you cannot draw a neat line from "irrational thinking," even measured in clinical terms, and abuse risk.

But the articles drew the straight line from "irrational thinking," and abuse risk. They clearly stated even for clinical measures that abusive parents have unreal expectations, have Mind filters that percieve hostility and threat when theres none and think in rigid and absolute terms as mentioned in those articles. Those articles are basing the findings about abusive parents on the clinical measures.

The abusive parents have unrealistic expectations, are usually rigid and inflexible in their thinking, believe that harsh punishment is the only way and have low self-esteem and self-efficacy.

Controlling parents cannot regulate their emotions, they misperceive reality and assume hostility, Their defensive mechanisms are so powerful that complete dissociation from reality can be the result.

Physically abusive parents have deficits in their perceptions, expectations, interpretations and evaluations of their child’s behaviour. have high levels of personal distress, have information processing difficulties which makes perspective taking more difficult.

greater approval of parent–child aggression, negative perceptions of their child’s behavior, and discipline attributions independently predicted parent–child aggression risk with anger significantly interacting with mothers’ perception of their child as more poorly behaved to exacerbate their parent–child aggression risk.

How are these not clearly and directly supporting what I have said.

 

[Paidiske]

But the articles drew the straight line from "irrational thinking," and abuse risk. They clearly stated even for clinical measures that abusive parents have unreal expectations, have Mind filters that percieve hostility and threat when theres none and think in rigid and absolute terms as mentioned in those articles.

But what I am asking is for the clear link between "irrational thinking" and the very specific beliefs which underpin abuse. Unreal expectations and demandingness we can see related to hierarchy, power and control. Thinking in rigid terms might relate to rigid household roles. But what about acceptance of violence? And how does perceiving hostility relate to the beliefs which unerpin abuse?

I am looking at that thinking that someone could score highly for irrational thinking based on measures which don't relate to beliefs which drive abuse, and not be likely to be abusive. And so the association is not as secure as you have been claiming, at all, much less clearly causative.

It is very difficult to make sense of quotes taken out of context without links to the original source material.

 

[stevevw]

But what I am asking is for the clear link between "irrational thinking" and the very specific beliefs which underpin abuse.

Thats exactly what they did if you are open to understand what the articles are saying. For example
abusive parents have unrealistic expectations, are usually rigid and inflexible in their thinking, believe that harsh punishment is the only way.
This relates to the core irrational belief under the the RAIBS scale of "Demandingness": This category of irrational beliefs contains absolutist, rigid beliefs which include should, ought, have to statements.

So the measure is Demandingness and the absolutist and rigidity in their thinking. That can be applied to anyone in any situation including marriages or a person using their position to control others within a hiearchy. They think with absolute statements like "you should behave like like or that and want others to conform or where a partner is stipulating rigid roles.

Or Low frustration tolerance: where a parent of person cannot handle behaviour or situations which fall outside their comfort zone which is having a narrow view and belief about how the world is. So behaviour outside what the person feels is the right way to act is not tolerated. Even when the behaviour may be normal.

When this thinking is combined with the psychological distress that the articles also supported abusing parents have this is when feelings turn negative such as aggression. Its the combination of the reactive feelings of aggression, the unreal expectations and beliefs that demand others conforms to their thinking is when some react and become violent and abusive to make others conform as they see it as a threat to their ordered and controlled world.

Unreal expectations and demandingness we can see related to hierarchy, power and control. Thinking in rigid terms might relate to rigid household roles. But what about acceptance of violence? And how does perceiving hostility relate to the beliefs which unerpin abuse?

Ah the hint is in the word 'hostility'. They percieve hostility and threat. That triggers a aggressive reaction that leads to abuse and violence. Its a natural instinct to fight or control the threat. BUt as the abusive parent is thinking irrational they percieve normal behaviour that provokes the reaction as a threat to be controlled.

If you notice one of the articles I specifically linked explaining this connection here
Findings suggest that greater approval of parent–child aggression, negative perceptions of their child’s behavior, and discipline attributions independently predicted parent–child aggression risk, with anger significantly interacting with mothers’ perception of their child as more poorly behaved to exacerbate their parent–child aggression risk. Of the discipline attribution dimensions evaluated, mothers’ sense of external locus of control and believing their child deserved their discipline were related to increase parent–child aggression risk.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0886260516629386

Theres that external locus of control again where the parent is fixating on controlling the outside world, their childs and peoples behaviour to conform to their unreal perceptions of the world which is where their beliefs stem from. But it seems aggression is directly linked to the unreal expectations of the abuser which are then transferred onto the object, in this case the child. Ratrher than having a inner locus of control that will focus on self and controlling ones own behaviour.

I am looking at that thinking that someone could score highly for irrational thinking based on measures which don't relate to beliefs which drive abuse, and not be likely to be abusive. And so the association is not as secure as you have been claiming, at all, much less clearly causative.

The explainations and measurements can apply to anyone on any situation because its the Mind set and not the situations that are unreal and warped about the world and others behaviour. You could almost predict those who are at risk by their thinking in absolute and balck and white terms or catastrophising events and making peoples behaviour far worse than they really are.

What this does is create in the person an unreal situation where they are percieving threat where theres none and for some the reaction to that threat is to fight back with aggression, control, violence ect to make the world conform to their beliefs.

It is very difficult to make sense of quotes taken out of context without links to the original source material.

Some of those articles explained fiurther the sections I linked. They also has references to the original sources. If you bother to read them which it seems you don't. Thats what I mean you quickly dismiss everything because you have this fizated and narrow view about how the evdience should be when there's ample good evidence right in front of you.

 

[Paidiske]

Thats exactly what they did if you are open to understand what the articles are saying. For example
abusive parents have unrealistic expectations, are usually rigid and inflexible in their thinking, believe that harsh punishment is the only way.
This relates to the core irrational belief under the the RAIBS scale of "Demandingness": This category of irrational beliefs contains absolutist, rigid beliefs which include should, ought, have to statements.

Yes; and I agree that there is a potential point of connection there. But I see many aspects of irrational thinking which don't relate to abusive attitudes, and aspects of abusive attitudes which don't relate to what is being measured as irrational thinking. So the relationship is not strong enough for irrational thinking to be claimed as a necessary cause of the physical abuse of children.

 

[stevevw]

Yes; and I agree that there is a potential point of connection there. But I see many aspects of irrational thinking which don't relate to abusive attitudes, and aspects of abusive attitudes which don't relate to what is being measured as irrational thinking. So the relationship is not strong enough for irrational thinking to be claimed as a necessary cause of the physical abuse of children.

Can you give an example of these 'many' aspects that don't relate to abusive parenting. I think they explain the mechanisms and sum it up well.

 

[Paidiske]

Of the list: "Demandingness, Awfulizing, Frustration Intolerance and Global evaluations of human worth," I only see demandingness as having a clear relationship to any of the beliefs which underpin abuse. Frustration intolerance does not, for example, justify violence, bolster belief in hierarchy or power and control, or rigid roles. Nor does awfulising or having a low view of people (oneself and others).

 

[stevevw]

But that's not really a role. It's not about what you do.

Yes it is. They are stipulating the male and female roles and all that entails such as the need for a fathers influence rather than any other possible alternative to fill that role such as a Trans male or a female playing the role.

But why does it matter, its an obvious controlling of parental and marriage roles which relates to the same inequality, oppression and what many say is abuse of non cis and orientated people according to the Woke. So its abusive of certain people according to them which is one of the requirements similar to denting the autonomy and gender of a women by males controlling what they can and can't do.

Because we know about what forms the beliefs which underpin abuse. And it's not distress. The link I gave you about social norms in Georgia is a really good example.

Put it this way Georgia has something near 50% of parents admitting using physical punichment and with 82% admitting to physical violence being an issue in Georgia.

Given that psychological distress is well associated with a child who has been abused don't you think that they will grow up with distress and are more likely to abuse as the data says. Distress is not just experienced at the time of abuse. Distress can be any life experience and especially has its effect on people during childhood. So that distress can trace back to childhood and be effecting parents today.

People just don't believe in hurting others, doing something to others they would not want done to them for no good reason. They have to believe in it themselves and not because someone told them. They have to relate to the controlling thinking to begin with. Have that need to control to believe in control.

But is at least well-informed.

Well informed doesn't mean its correct. You can be well informed by some ideology as the Woke are claiming they know the true answer and truth and yet are wrong when we actually shine the light of evidence. So far most of your links are actually supporting what I am saying.

"Negative" is a subjective value judgement. It's fairly meaningless in this discussion.

So how do we tell the negative effects of child abuse if its subjective. How do we tell when aggression becomes negative as opposed to positive to stop abuse and violence. How do wee tell a belief is negative as opposed to positive. I suggest with the behaviour it produces and we certainly know what is positive or negative behaviour.

They actually have a 'Positive Parenting Program' to reduce neglect and abuse and DV.

And yet nothing in what you go on to say, disagrees with what I said that prompted this response from you.

What, I linked evidence which contradicted your claim that aggression cannot become out of control and that some people are more prone to aggression than others.

Heres another unreal claim you make. "Aggression is not a feeling, it's a personality trait". So do you think aggression has a feeling to it. Does it feel like something when aggressed. Whats the bodily reaction, does it have any effect on the body say compared to say relaxed. Can people sense different levels of aggression rising and falling.

Of course it can. And many people do learn to control their aggression, or to express it appropriately. I myself have learned to watch my words after being a fairly verbally aggressive young person in some situations.

So tell me is there any difference in ability to control aggression between a person with 'trait aggressiveness' and one without. Do you think they have to work harder to control their aggression. Do you think that those who may be psychologically distressed meaning they are not good at spotting and dealing with stuff who have 'trait aggressiveness' may lose controlof their aggression sometimes compared to someone who does not have 'trait aggressiveness' or someone is has emotional intelligence and insight to control themselves.

Saying that a person with this distress can ;Potentially' as a human learn to control themselves better. Heck the psychiatric patients in link learnt to control a lot more. But this doesn't negate the fact that there are parents who have not learnt that and abuse.

No, it doesn't. Someone who hits with a belt may be no less controlled than the person who hits with a hand.

Your forgeting that even smacking below the line is an act of aggression. Aggression means intending to cause harm to another. So we give a little leeway for aggression so long as it doesn't do too much harm. The combination of an implement with the aggression is considered too much. As soon as a person is raising their hand to another to inflict harm they are commiting an act of aggression on another.

Because it is disproportionate to the situation. It's not saying anything about the mental state of the person doing it.

Thats because the law says nothing about peoples mental state full stop when it comes to crossing the line. They may hear mitigating circumstances and even reduce sentences but the law itself doesn't include peoples mental state. Its just if you cross the line its illegal or unreasonable.

Well, no. "Controlled" and "reasonable" aren't the same thing at all.

They are when it comes to abuse or violence against others. To apply reasonable force means just that. If you go over that line you have not controlled your behaviour to stay under. You have slipped into the uncontrolled territory because your behaviour is now unrreasonable when it should have been kept under the line. We would say the situation got out of hand or out of control.

Really? I've done psychology 101 (and then some). And it seems to me that you are the one oversimplifying and misunderstanding these things.

I don't think so. You are seperating feelings, emotions, cognition and beliefs and saying somehow they are irrelevant when they are always mixed and influencing each other. You want to isolate beliefs like they are the cause of everything when to believe means involving emotions and cognitions and our experience which we base beliefs on. Thats just a fundemental mistake in how humans and reality works.

Correct.

How can that be when the basic principles about how humans come to believe in something involves a persons positive and negative experiences. That out experiences will determine our beliefs. This is the case for all human behaviour but somehow your making beliefs about abuse different when they are not.

They don't.

Then what did your link mean when it said "mental illness that is adequately treated would not be expected to lead to increased violence risk". That implies mental illness not treated is a risk factor.

How do you explain this evidence
Children of parents with depression or schizophrenia are 2 times more likely to experience abuse than children of parents without mental illness;

Maternal mental illness and the safety and stability of maltreated children - PMC

Children of mothers with mental illness are at risk for multiple untoward outcomes, including child maltreatment and foster care placement. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the association between maternal mental illness and children’s ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

One of the problems I seen with your study was that it was only over a short period of 12 months. Other longer term studies tell a different story and in fact have up to a 5 or 6 times greater risk of a parent has a mental illness.

Lifespan risks of growing up in a family with mental illness or substance abuse
The risk of child maltreatment was 5 to 5.6 times higher if mental illness and 4.9 to 6.9 times higher if substance abuse of a family member was reported.

Lifespan risks of growing up in a family with mental illness or substance abuse - PMC

Growing up in a family with one member being affected by mental health problems or substance abuse is an adverse childhood experience which can lead to socioeconomic and health-related impairments in later life. Furthermore, the risk of child ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Maternal mental illness and the safety and stability of maltreated children
Children of mothers with mental illness are at risk for multiple untoward outcomes, including child maltreatment and foster care placement. Mental illness influences parenting behaviors, which affect child safety. Depression elevates the risk of coercive or hostile parenting, and corporal punishment. Anxious mothers demonstrate less warmth, more criticism, and higher levels of control toward their children. Maternal depression places children at risk for abuse. Children of parents with antisocial behavior are 6 times more likely to experience abuse.

Maternal mental illness and the safety and stability of maltreated children - PMC

Children of mothers with mental illness are at risk for multiple untoward outcomes, including child maltreatment and foster care placement. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the association between maternal mental illness and children’s ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

But if you want to equate more commom psychological and emotional issues as mental illness then you will have to explain the very, very high rates (around 80%) of psychological distress such as anxiety and depressive disorders associated with parental abuse.

The one I provided explicitly stated that the majority of people who abuse have no mental illness.

In light of the evidence above this is obviously not correct. So either you are reading that into it or the article itself is wrong. Like I said it seems a very short term study and 1 year is not enough to determine the facts. Long term studies and meta analysis show the vast majority of evidence shows that mental illness is a risk factor which usually co-occurs with other risk factors such as substance abuse, relationship conflict, and other stressors that build to abuse.

Also your article does acknowledge that there is a problem with the definition of mental illness where its conflated with other more common and non psychiatric problems as I said. Saying most abusers don't have mental illness doesn't discount all the other risk factors like psychological distress such as anxiety and depression.

However, discrepancies have been found in the very definitions of mental illness and of abuse (1). Some studies include not only serious mental illness (that is, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and recurrent major depression) but also substance use disorders, self-reported (and unverified) depressive symptoms, personality disorders, and anxiety in a larger vague category. However, substance use disorders and personality disorders are usually considered to be distinct violence risk factors, separate from serious mental illness.

So it may well be true that the majority of abusive parents don't have a mental illness as psychiatric disorders are more rare and many are managed by the fact that they become pretty obviously unmanaged and need help in other ways. But this doesn't dicount all the psychological and emotional problems parents have which is combined with other risk like substance abuse, poverty, family breakdown, stress ect that are highly connected to abuse.

 

[stevevw]

No, they wouldn't. If we successfully challenged the beliefs which underpin abuse, they might still experience significant problems, but they would express them in different ways.

This is a good example of what I mean by not understanding basic psychology and human behaviour. Your more or less saying that someone changing the belief of someone with psychological distress which causes the belief in the first place with miracously dispell the psychological distress as well. You have the horse before the cart.

If their psychological distress is creating the distorted perceptions of the world for which the beliefs are based on then you have to change the basis for why they believe in such things. Its like trying to change an alcoholic to believe that drink is not the answer.

They can agree but they will go right back to drinking until their underlying psychological and emotional issues are addressed. Then they worldview changes andthey are open to more positive beliefs because they have been changed on the inside not by some conditioning on the outside.

As so many people who don't have those beliefs in the first place, but have the same sorts of problems, do all the time.

I question that. If people have negative beliefs they are going to have some negative things happen whether thats abuse and violence or substance abuse, anti social behaviour, relation conflict ect. Its like the saying you are what you eat or your are what you believe.

But yes people have problems and they manage them but thats more about managing themselves. Some people cannot do that for various reasons and this leads to inappropriate behaviour. I guarentee you that one of the first things offered to abusers is therapy and education to dispell their unreal beliefs and thinking.

Firstly, it's off topic to this thread.

Actually its exactly related to what we have been talking about which you seem to accept as on topic. If you can't rationalise a justification why its irrational for males to believe that oppressing and abusing women is ok then you can't for abusers of children.

Secondly, I make such arguments routinely, I'm sure you can find some on CF if you try.

Ok so then apply the same logic to abusers of children, that there is no rational way to justify oppressing and controlling others as though its good for their autonomy and wellbeing when its obviously not.

And thirdly, my whole point is that although I might disagree, that doesn't mean they're irrational.

But the question is are they rational in the real world, in the world we all have to live in together. Are they thinking straight as far as the evidence you could show them that their beliefs are in error, a distortion of reality to defeat their claimsonce and for all.

Whether or not we should do something doesn't rest on whether or not it is rational; it rests on whether or not it is ethical. Which is a completely separate argument.

But how can it rest on ethics when there are different subjective ethics. Who says that one view of what is ethical is right over another. This would leave a stalemate where all ethical views have equal status. Abuse would be no more wrong than kindness as it would be up to subjective opinions.

I suggest that we actually don't use ethics as the basis though ethics are involved. We qualify what is right or wrong, good or bad by the facts of the matter. We know that abuse damages humans and their potential. We at least know that human life is valuable as we experience it. So damaging humans for no good reason is wrong on a number of levels scientifically such as psychological, physical, to families and society.

I said that saying that one sex is superior to the other is a subjective matter. Oppression is easier to argue against than a subjective value judgement.

Yes so behaving like one sex is inferior is the practical result we can measure as a consequence of that belief. Then it becomes an objective reality we can measure.

Where did you get such a strange idea? People do things considered unreasonable in a controlled way all the time.

Yes they have a degree of control with their delusional world. They can maintain control when cooking, working ect but lose control in certain situations. They can even control their passive aggressive torment and routine on a child like its happy families. But this is all a form of not being in control psychologically and emotionally.

They are not always 100% out of control and being out of control isn't 100% loss of control. Even Schitzophrenics can have relatively good routine and control but then will lose it at certain points usually when things build up.

We all lose control like missing appointments, forgetting birthdays, falling behind in bills but we end up managing things. Others just have more occassions of losing varying degrees of control and more often allowing things to build up where they lose control completely more often.

Nonsense. I think of my own parents; they knew where the legal line was, they disagreed with it, and they felt justified in overstepping it, but you could never accuse them of a lack of diligence. They were diligent in doing their duty as parents, as they understood it.

Ok did they seek to clarify where the line was. What the law and facts said. Did chilly in the mouth actually stop swearing. Did a belting leaving welts actually make for a better behaved child and well adjusted or a more misbehaved one with mental issues.

If they were truely dilegent when making such a claim they would have sought the facts like any rational person would to test their personal claims. They would have also done some reflection into themselves. But if they did they would have found they were completely wrong and deluded. If they still chose to abuse then they are really deluded by their beliefs.

No, I was saying they may have been at risk even without this particular mental health condition.

The people in the study no, they had mental illness and mental illness is regarded as a risk factor. That doesn't mean that all parents with mental illness will abuse. Its usually because things deteriorate without treatment and support where other risks combine. Like mental illness and substance abuse are highly comorbid. Or family conflict or other stressors as well.

Was it? Do you have a quote to that effect?

Yes I thought I already did here

Many studies have purported to find an elevated risk of child abuse perpetration among parents who have mental illnesses. However, discrepancies have been found in the very definitions of mental illness and of abuse (1). Some studies include not only serious mental illness (that is, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and recurrent major depression) but also substance use disorders, self-reported (and unverified) depressive symptoms, personality disorders, and anxiety in a larger vague category. However, substance use disorders and personality disorders are usually considered to be distinct violence risk factors, separate from serious mental illness.

So even your link is saying that Mental illness or psychiatric conditions are different to anxiety and depressive problems and the like and should not be mixed in with Mental illness consitions which are different and more serious or need psychiatric treatments in specialise facilities or specialised psychiatrists.

No, I'm saying anxiety problems are included in mental illness. And yes, absolutely the article is saying - what I have been saying - abusive parents do not all have anxiety issues.

Well your own link says they should not so they would be going against their own advice and nullifying their findings.

Including depression, anxiety, and the other common diagnoses which are generally managed without hospital admission.

No they seperated them out as not being the same and should not be included in studies about mental illness as above. Some depressive and anxiety disorders can be more severe if they include psychoisis. But the more common anxiety and depressive problems or suchstance abuse are not considered psychiatric problems. Otherwise half the population should be in a mental home lol.

Well, no, obviously. But nor am I going to buy into the idea that all of the abusive parents had undiagnosed anxiety disorders, with absolutely no evidence for that claim.

All parents. Maybe not but the vast majority. Like I said around 80% plus of single mums who abuse have anxiety issues. So its certainly a major factor.

"I disagree, so it's obviously wrong!" Not a very convincing position.

Then you will have to explain why there is a high link between psychological distress and parents who abuse as this clearly contradicts your link if that is what you claim it means. .

Well, yes, it can. Because so many people with psychiatric problems never abuse.

Then you will have to explain why the evidence says different.
Children of parents with depression or schizophrenia are 2 times more likely to experience abuse than children of parents without mental illness; and The risk of child maltreatment was 5 to 5.6 times higher if mental illness.

But your conflating once again Mental illness with common psychological distress. I am saying that some sort of distress which doesn't have to be a psychiatric condition but rather common anxiety or depression along with other risk factors are what leads to high risk.

Child abuse as an issue in the household is a dysfunctional household causing damage to the child and family. Its distressing no matter how much you try and dress it up. Child abuse cannot be absent distress because it causes distress and takes distress to do.

 

[stevevw]

You've never even demonstrated that people are "primed" to hold the beliefs which underpin abuse. Just claimed it.

I have plenty of times. For example all the articles that speak about the abusers having a certain Mindset of MInd Filter that percieves hostility and thinks in controlling terms. That is a mind primed to believe in control.

All the articles that mention how the abuser has unreal expectations, problems percieving reality, showing they have a certain thinking due to their psychological distress which distorts their perceptions to believe in unreal ideas like control and abuse.

These parents had to have been primed by previous experiences to end up with such thinking and beliefs.

No, I mean expressed his aggression.

If aggression is intending to harm others then because he has controlled his feelings and not harmed anyone he is not aggressing but rather giving a strict critique that spares not harsh comments but still within the right way not to be harmful. If it was aggressively harmful then I don't think he would last long in the job.

Nevertheless he is controlling his feelings and not allowing them to get out of hand which he may have done in the past and got into trouble for. But he is doing so due to his maturity, he has learnt from his experiences what is appropriate and what is not. But some parents cannot do that, perhaps like your teacher that may have aggressed in the past and learnt his lessonl.

Not necessarily. Aggression can be expressed without the intent to harm.

No aggression towards another is intent to harm or do damage even when its more positive. For example in boxing or league the aim is to take your opponent out sometimes with aggression such as takling hard to hurt and running over the top of players to score.

Aggression is a ready state to fight and act intensely, to attack something even if its a job and defeat it or destroy it. Thats why when negative that is directed at people especially children or women its regarded as an immediate threat to harm and even positive aggression towards people has to be justified strictly as its usually about harming them.

Well, if you want to argue abusers have no free will, don't choose to abuse, then I completely disagree. It's a choice.

Do you think everyones free will is the same in the same situation. Do some have impediments to making free choices. Like someone with a weakness for drugs, or aggression, or someone who perhaps percieves something unreal like a threat and has the feeling to attack compared to someone who doesn't see things unreal and not a threat.

 

[stevevw]

Of the list: "Demandingness, Awfulizing, Frustration Intolerance and Global evaluations of human worth," I only see demandingness as having a clear relationship to any of the beliefs which underpin abuse. Frustration intolerance does not, for example, justify violence, bolster belief in hierarchy or power and control, or rigid roles. Nor does awfulising or having a low view of people (oneself and others).

Then why do the authors state that they are the core beliefs relating to irrational beliefs and control, aggression and violence. Its all got to do with the Mindset. Low Frustration Tolerance can be about people believing others are not meeting their unreal expectations of behaviour. So they put them in boxes or want to control them.

Think of it this way. Exerting power and control over others is really a defense mechanism for an insecure, anxious or frustrated person person who is not happy with themselves and life. Otherwise they would not compare and pick on others. They have to bolster themselves up while deminishing others down.

Having such insecurities or anxieties is known to lead to making things far worse than they really hense the 'Awefullising' of self and others behaviour and situations. Exaggerating things magnifies everything hense the unreal expectations and irrational thinking so the unreal threat and insecurity or whatever the issue is magnified and hense the greater need to control offten with aggression.

Global evaluations of self and others speaks for itself. People are comparing themselves all the time with measure about what is a good and bad person hence the insecurity of self. These end up often being expressed in negative feelings, thinking and behaviour about others but also self.

Thats why these 4 core beliefs as well as some subscale measures that relate to these beliefs are the basis for all beliefs rational or irreational including beliefs about rigid roles and controlling people through hierarchies. I don;t want to go into the detail at the moment but I could pull out the support for this if you want.